IC’s Top 25 Philosophical and Ideological Conservative Books-No. 8 - Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality

 by Enrico Peppe  

| View comments |  Print This Post

Ludwig von Mises' The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality synthesizes sociology, psychology, and economics into an excellent account of one salient part of American intellectual history.

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality
by Ludwig von Mises
Published by Libertarian Press (June 1994) (originally published 1956)
Ppbk.
ISBN: 0910884293

This small volume is #8 in the continuing series of IC's Top 25 Philosophical and Ideological Conservative Books.

It is a remarkable book in that it synthesizes sociology, psychology, and economics into an excellent account of one salient part of American intellectual history. If read with Richard Hofstadter's
Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, and Daniel Bell's essay, "The Intelligentsia in America," one clearly visualizes the mindset of the Libertarian-Conservative (Mises), the Liberal (Hofstadter), and the Neo-Conservative (Bell).

I reviewed Mises' Method, Money, and the Market, as #22 in this series as a "beautiful introduction" to his work. Here, this prolific genius takes his prized system of capitalism (of which he and his fellow Austrians are the only accurate interpreters) and attempts to explain why the system that forwards a "continuous improvement in (man's) average standard of living . . ." is vilified.

He succeeds strongly!

In a March 12, 2002 interview with Lew Rockwell, president of the Mises Institute, Myles Kantor asked about the importance of the book. Rockwell's response:

Mises addressed the question: why are the cultural elites so biased against the free-market economy, and all it represents, despite the evidence that it is the only system compatible with a developed civilization?

Further:

(Mises) took it for granted that huge sectors of the intelligentsia and media are deeply ignorant of economics. In this book he addresses the problem not of ignorance but hate: hatred of the businessman and entrepreneur, and the assumptions that the business class is secretly criminal, that the rich never deserve what they own, that businesses that rake in profits by serving others through enterprise somehow 'owe' something to the 'community,' so, if they don't give it up voluntarily, it should be taken from them.

(See my review of Rockwell's Reader, #11 for IC.com).

The piece has sections dealing with the sociology and psychology of the vilifiers, the ordinary man and his perceptions of capitalism, "Literature under Capitalism," the noneconomic hatred of capitalism, and "Anticommunism versus Capitalism."

These subsections are more than noteworthy for explication:

Mises on the Intellectuals

In a very profound way Mises proffers no blame as to the hatred of capitalism on the part of the intellectuals. It's a two-sided phenomenon. Whereas in Europe society is open to the accomplished: entrepreneur, artist, writer, scientist and so on, the American scene is discrete.

(There is) . . . a resentment with which the intellectuals react to the contempt in which they are held by members of 'society.'

Mises nails the situation in an unbiased non-ideological manner. (Most Libertarian Austrians following the heed of Mises and Rothbard analyze ideology brilliantly and yet are not necessarily "ideological.")

If a group of people secludes itself from the rest of the nation . . . especially . . . from its intellectual leaders . . . they unavoidably become the target of rather hostile criticisms on the part of those whom they keep out of their own circles. The exclusivism practiced by the American rich has made them in a certain sense outcasts. (The rich) . . . fail to see that their self-chosen segregation isolates them and kindles animosities which make the intellectuals inclined to favor anticapitalistic policies.

Critics of Mises who look upon this great thinker as a "tool of the rich" had better read his works wholly.

Mises on the Literati

The "orthodox" intolerance of the "unorthodox" literati needs little disputation. A randomly scheduled visit to a university classroom will suffice.

There is a decided dogmatism present! Nothing has changed since the publication of this piece in 1956. Service rather than profit is the mantra.

Mises correctly points out that,

This 'unorthodox' dogmatism is a self-contradictory and confused mixture of various doctrines incompatibile with one another. It is eclecticism at its worst, a garbled collection of surmises borrowed from fallacies and misconceptions long since exploded. It includes scraps from many socialist authors . . . from the German Historical School, the Fabians, the American institutionalists, the French Syndicalists, the Technocrats. It repeats errors of Godwin, Carlyle, Ruskin Bismarck, Sorel, Veblen and a host of less well known men.

Mises spends time singling out errors in the literati mindset as it pertains to economics and in so doing extends his analysis toward the social-psychological milieu in which we today find ourselves, where Walmart stores are deemed destructive to a community rather than perceived as places where great services are provided to people who reside therein.

Mises on the Anti-Capitalist Front

Mises ends this section this way:

People may disagree on the question of whether everybody ought to study economics seriously. But one thing is certain. A man who publicly talks or writes about the opposition between capitalism and socialism without having fully familiarized himself with all that economics has to say about these issues is an irresponsible babbler.

(The reader might well look into purchasing the Home Study Economics Course offered by the Mises Institute.)

Mises perceptively blames post-enlightenment pro-socialist attitudes on the part of the aristocracy and protestant theologians for knee-jerk anticapitalism still extant. While the social philosophy of the Enlightenment birthed the market economy and escutcheons and nontransubstantiational
Eucharists remained replete, nevertheless, "envy and hatred" prevailed.

The Hohenzollern in Germany inaugurated a policy of . . . monarchical socialism . . . the Romanovs of Russia . . . labor unionism . . . Niebuhr and Tillich . . . openly (condemned) capitalism.

I dare my readers to find a more common sense explanation of the prevalence of the Leftist Mind!

Mises on Liberty and Western Civilization

Mises' final section is his most astute and the most complicated to grasp. This is not a failing on Mises' part. The writing is clear. It's just that we have not been conditioned to think in the mode of Synthesis and Evaluation. We need to think intelligently as Benjamin Bloom would have us.

Here it goes:

The market economy allows us the opportunity to do what we will within the natural social division of labor. We are free to choose our vocation and do not have to depend on the largesse of those in power. This is a thoroughly Western concept emanating from the Enlightenment (though one could dig deeper with Rothbard and find pre-Enlightenment Christian underpinnings).

Not true with the East, says Mises:

Western society was a community of individuals who could compete for the highest prices. Eastern society was an agglomeration of subjects entirely dependent on the good graces of the sovereigns . . . the meek progeny of Eastern parents know of nothing else than to follow the routine of their environment . . . (should we) . . . seek contentment in a vast machine designed and operated by an almighty planmaker?

This last section is so profound, it raises lasting questions for the intellectual conservative.

1. Should the method of education be objectivity (whatever this means since schools deemed "objective" are most usually Leftist, Collectivist, Eastern in proclivity toward matters theological, psychological, economic)?

2. Instead, should the method of education be subjectivity? Buckley raised this point in God and Man at Yale.

It went unnoticed.

The importance of the book under review for this Rightist and a gorgeous vindication of the Mises Message might be this consideration:

If things be perfect and the market unfettered, would parents save funds for their children to attend schools with philosophies and teaching methodologies akin to the Mises Institute, the Henry George School (the Chodorov roots have vanished) or the Podesta Center?

If things be perfect and the market unfettered would parents save funds so that their children might become successful?

Would such parents clamor for reserved seats in the classes of, say, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Enrico Colombatto, Tibor Machen?

The answer is obvious.

The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality is available on Amazon.com.

Book Reviews, IC’s Top 25 Conservative Books, Political Theory, Humanities, Language, Academia, Histo

Read more articles by Enrico Peppe